If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Welcome to the new PC Perspective forums! Have a look around and tell us what you think in our feedback forum. If you notice any bugs or style issues, please report them in this thread.

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Kimberley Strassel explains it all to you. Actual quote from The One’s attack website: “A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them.” This from a guy who’s still using Jon Corzine as a bundler.

Remember, when asked last month at his White House presser about Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, the Unicorn Prince intoned that he doesn’t like to see private citizens attacked for their political advocacy. Here’s Strassel on how seriously he takes that:

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers — to jail, to fine, to bankrupt — are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”…

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency — the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC — what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney.

They’ve been demagoging the Kochs for months but the flaw in that tactic is that it doesn’t do much to intimidate other wealthy Republicans. Arguably, it achieves the opposite effect. The more lefty rage is directed at “the Kochtopus” as an all-purpose explanation for the country’s ills, the less attention is paid to lower-profile conservatives. If you want to pressure people into not donating to Romney, you’re better off spreading the hate around. Hence “the list.”

That said, while reading Strassel’s piece I kept thinking of this post from the other night about how many of Obama’s “policy” speeches have been transparently political over the last few months. In his case, part of the shock in seeing the president call out private citizens is lost because for months he’s seemed much more like a candidate than a C-in-C. That’s one of the reasons they’re hitting the Bin Laden anniversary so hard, I think — it’s not only one of his few unambiguous triumphs as president, it’s a rare moment when he was acting unambiguously as president. That’s a smart image to push while you’re busy smearing Romney’s “less-than-reputable” donors.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Update: Patrick Ishmael e-mails with a good point:

Doesn’t this make it more likely that they’d donate to SuperPACs, where they can give unlimited amounts anonymously? And how exactly is that advantageous to Obama? At least Romney has to stand by his ads. He doesn’t have to do squat with American Crossroads and the rest.

Yep. If you’re worried about being hassled by Obama and his base, you’re better off sticking with Super PAC donations. That means even less transparency from political donors in the aggregate, but I’m not sure O minds that. He doesn’t really care about transparency, he cares about choking off funds to Romney’s campaign for organizational and other GOTV uses. Funneling rich donors away from that and entirely into Super PACs may be his best bet since many of them are bound to be donating heavily to Super PACs anyway.

What a douche..

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

. . .
“This whole thing with Obama saying the rich don’t pay their taxes is f**king bullsh**. And I voted for the guy, and I’m a Democrat. What a f**king a**hole. The rich don’t pay their taxes? Let me tell you something, right. First they say to you, you’re dead broke, ‘the United States of America, you can do anything you want, go for it.’ So then you go for it and then you make it, and everyone’s like ‘f**k you.’”

He went on to say, “If I make a dollar and out of every dollar I’m taxed at 50, half, at 50 cents, I have to give, isn’t that like enough? It’s half. HALF!”

. . .

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

She's now claiming she doesn't know if she told Harvard she was part Indian.

Somehow that just ended up in Harvard's bio of her -- but I suppose maybe they thought she just "looked Cherokee" or something.

Now she claims she doesn’t “recall” if she played the race card when she applied for her big-wampum $350,000-a-year job at Harvard Law. You see, it was so many moons — I mean years, ago. Sounds like a lot of bull — Sitting Bull.
She even said she knew nothing about Harvard Law bragging about her alleged Indian heritage until she read about it in the Herald. More Sitting Bull from the Veritas crowd.

Granny knows how this plays out from here. A group of Indians — real Indians — will demand that she release her employment application to Harvard Law, so we can see what box she really checked off under race, as if we don’t already have a pretty good idea.

Is this claim credible?

“I don’t even remember,” she added when asked about a 1996 Harvard Crimson article that quoted a then-law school spokesman touting her minority status. “You’re trying to raise something from 15 years ago.”
Her GOP Senate rival, U.S. Sen. Scott Brown, said today the story raises “some questions that need to be answered.” Brown’s campaign went further calling on Warren to apologize for allowing Harvard to claim she was part Native American.

“For years, Harvard has claimed special minority status for Professor Elizabeth Warren as a member of a Native American tribe and their first minority hire,” said Jim Barnett, campaign manager for Brown. “That Warren allowed Harvard to hold her up as an example of their commitment to diversity in the hiring of historically disadvantaged communities is an insult to all Americans who have suffered real discrimination and mistreatment, and Warren should apologize for participating in this hypocritical sham.”

Pictured: a wild-eyed savage delighting in the destruction of the civilization of the West; and a Cherokee warrior, ca. 1836
David Bernstein of Volokh looks into Warren's claim that she has no idea how Harvard got the idea she was an Indian.

The old AALS Directory of Faculty guides are online (through academic libraries) at Hein Online. The directories starting listing minority faculty in an appendix in 1986. There’s Elizabeth Warren, listed as a professor at Texas. I spot-checked three additional directories from when she was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, including 1995-96, the year Harvard offered her a position. Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren.
So, we know one thing with almost 100% certainty: Elizabeth Warren identified herself as a minority law professor. We know something else with 90%+ certainty: (at least some) folks at Harvard were almost certainly aware that she identified as a minority law professor, though they may not have known which ethnic group she claimed to be belong to, and it may not have played any role in her hiring.

But it gets even more interesting: once Warren joined the Harvard faculty, she dropped off the list of minority law faculty. Now that’s passing strange. When the AALS directory form came around before Warren arrived at Harvard, she was proud enough of her Native American ancestry to ask that she be listed among the minority law professors. (Or, in the unlikely even that she just allowed law school administrators to fill out the forms for her without reviewing them, they were aware that she claimed such ancestry, and she didn’t object when she was listed.) Once she arrived at Harvard, however, she no longer chose to be listed as a minority law professor.

You Know When I Said Nothing Untoward Would Occur In Your Mouth?

...that was just part of my "Family's lore." See, if it it's "family lore," it doesn't have to be true.

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

I got to say, fellas, this pic just kills me..I 'm kinda of getting a kick out of
the Pres trying to cover all tracks. Yea, this guy will probably get
re-erected, but watching him the little I do when he starts blabbing
reminds me of this..

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

^^^No2, I love your new sig. I read it and thought you know what, I could use a little refund check right now. It wouldn't even have to be that big, and I would immediately take that money and give it to an American manufacturer. It just so happens my Japanese car needs some parts that are made by Energy Suspension, a place that still makes it's stuff in the US. Will I buy the parts that I need? Nope, can't swing the extra $100 right now. Maybe if the idiots in charge hadn't squandered my money on "green energy" crap I'd have that little bit extra to give to a real American manufacturer providing real jobs!

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

I love the libs trying to explain the dog eating thing as something that's not terrible.

Like liteman saying "Oh, the founding fathers ate dog." That's a statement that's patently false. Yes, some Americans ate dog before 1845, but there's absolutely no proof that old John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were munching on beagle like our dog-eater-in-chief. And even if they did, they also owned slaves, believed in blood letting and other moronic things. Barack Obama ate dog in.... oh, 1970. Not exactly like eating dog in 1776.

And, BD, who kept reminding us that he knew apparently 250 dog lovers who wouldn't vote for Romney for Shamus' old trip on the roof, has all but been silenced on the "dog issue" since it came out that young Barry Obama liked to munch on dog bits.

They picked the fight with the right on the dog issue and they got a left hook in the mouth. Most have given up on the issue but it's laughable to watch the 3% of the remaining liberals try to defend the Obama's dog snacks.

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."

Re: The 2012 Election Thread

Oobertwit 1%'er who claims she's not a wealthy individual (despite having a net worth between $4.6 and $14.5 million) and also brags that she provided the “intellectual foundations” of Occupy Wall Street (same group whose Organizers just got busted by the Feds for plotting to blow up a bridge) is 1/32nd Cherokee.

Turns out BD24's favorite class warrior makes heapum big whumpum $$ and her claims of minority status stink of buffalo droppings. Looks like you might have pitched a tee-pee over the wrong squaw there BD.

"The most dangerous myth is the demagoguery that business can be made to pay a larger share, thus relieving the individual. Politicians preaching this are either deliberately dishonest, or economically illiterate, and either one should scare us...
Only people pay taxes, and people pay as consumers every tax that is assessed against a business."